Tuesday, 17 June 2014

Multiculturalism Is Better than Assimilation

"All assimilation is equivalent to cultural genocide, for the assimilator or the assimilated." (Guillaume Faye)

Pursuing a pro-European ethnic strategy within the framework of Canadian multiculturalism is better than calling upon non-Europeans to assimilate to Canada. European Canadians should utilize current multicultural policies to preserve and enhance their ethnic identity as the founding peoples.

Whites Will Soon Become a Minority in Canada

European Canadians, who still made up about 96 percent of the population in 1971, will be reduced to a deteriorating minority within a few decades. One-third of Canada's population will be a visible minority by 2031. Projections by Statistics Canada (2010) suggest that "whites will become the minority in Toronto and Vancouver over the course of the next three decades." South Asians, including Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans, are expected to make up 28 per cent of the population in these two cities, and the Chinese alone are estimated to constitute 21 percent. In the city of Vancouver, according to Daniel Hierbert, White residents in Vancouver will be reduced to 2 out of 5 residents by 2031. In Toronto, Europeans will number only 37% of the population.

Statistics Canada defines "visible minorities" as "persons, other than aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour." If we take aboriginals into account, the projections are that "between 21% and 24% of the population of Saskatchewan and between 18% and 21% of the population of Manitoba" will have an Aboriginal identity in 2031.

(It should be noted that Statistics Canada recognizes the existence of races in these projections, using regularly the terms "Caucasians" and "non-Caucasian in race" or "non-white in colour." I will follow the terminology of Statistics Canada.)

The fact that these projections are pointing to a future Canada in which "Caucasians" will be increasingly displaced by people who are "non-white in colour" is never seen as an issue by any of the mainstream political parties and the media. Instead, Caucasians who lament their dwindling numbers are categorically denounced as supremacists, while "non-Caucasians in race" who call for a majority Asian Canada are celebrated as vibrant and liberal-minded — regardless of their otherwise intolerant customs, hyper-patriarchal dispositions, and unwillingness to marry outside their race.

Certainly, there are many Canadians who oppose current immigration numbers and policies. These critics are not cold-shouldered as long as they avoid framing the issue in terms that only Statistics Canada can enjoy: "Caucasians" versus "non-whites in colour."

Four Major Arguments Critical of Immigration

There are four major arguments/groups currently in the air calling for immigration reform. These can be identified as follows:

those who argue that immigrants cost more than they benefit Canada economically

those who think that immigration-led-population growth is the major factor causing environmental deterioration

those who worry about radical Muslim immigration as a potential threat to Canadian values and security

those who think that the problem lies with the way official multiculturalism discourages immigrants from assimilating to "Canadian values"

The flaw in all these arguments is that they fail to acknowledge the in-group ethnic interests of "non-whites in colour" and "Caucasians" and, for this reason, lack an ethnic strategy dedicated to the preservation and advancement of European Canadians. None of these arguments contain an internally consistent position against the eventual end of European Canada, but are indeed compatible with the statistical trends just outlined above.

Critics concerned about rising house prices, cost to taxpayers, government benefits, unemployment and lower wages for existing Canadians, do make powerful arguments against mass immigration, but they still face intractable difficulties guarding the particular interests of European Canadians:

First, the number of non-Europeans in Canada is already very high, and to speak of "Canadian citizens" in neutral terms is to forget the numerous ethnic enclaves in Canada where millions of "non-whites in colour" are naturally pursuing their own ethnic interests.

Second, immigration can always be shown to have positive economic results for certain groups and sectors of the economy averaged as beneficial for "Canadians" even if the beneficiaries are primarily recent immigrants and non-European ethnic groups.

Third, in a future state of economic affairs, combined with below-replacement fertility rates by European Canadians, it can be shown that immigration brings about "economic growth." In principle, any argument for or against "the economy" can never be used in favor of the ethnic interests of European Canadians since economic arguments tabulate costs and benefits for the economy and for Canadian citizens rather than for particular ethnic groups. Only by speaking openly about the economic interests of particular ethnic groups can such economic arguments be made effectively.

The ecological argument can be very effective in showing that the biggest cause of environmental degradation is population growth and urban sprawl, and the biggest cause of population growth is immigration. But it faces a comparable inability to fight against the end of European Canada. Since its focus is on population size and density per se, it has no views about the ethnic composition of Canada. By logic, environmentalists would prefer a steady-state situation in which non-Europeans outnumbered Europeans than a growth situation in which Europeans outnumbered non-Europeans. Environmentalists are also intrinsically in favor of low fertility rates for everyone even if it means the proportional reduction of European peoples in Canada.

As it is, as much as environmentalists may want to avoid ethnic issues, they are still ostracized by "progressives" as racists the moment they talk about reducing immigration. They would earn greater respect if they were to state openly that their concerns about the environment and immigration are tied to their concerns about "protecting" the endangered European Canadians.

Those who worry about radical Muslims simply want greater controls on the type of immigrants, "checks" on their ideological background — but in principle they have no complaints against current levels of immigration, and thus no objections to the reduction of Europeans to a minority. They want Muslims to integrate into Canada as individuals with equal rights rather with special group rights. Critics of radical Islam tend to be critical of multiculturalism as well.

Assimilation Argument is Fundamentally Flawed

This brings us to the most popular criticism of our immigration policies, which is that the problem is the way immigration in Canada has been framed within the ideology of multiculturalism. These critics believe that immigration would "work" if only immigrants were encouraged to assimilate to "Canadian values" rather than celebrate their diverse cultural backgrounds. They say multiculturalism provides immigrant minorities with cultural resources that encourage them to retain their ancestral customs rather than assimilate to Canadian liberal values. They want the government and the educational institutions to encourage a sense of Canadian citizenship, loyalty to Canada's liberal democratic culture. They believe that assimilation to Canada is all about nurturing a new sense of identity that is "civic" rather than "ethnic". Any immigrant group (with the possible exception of radical Muslims) is capable of disaggregating itself into abstract individual units and join average Canadians. So long as ethnic group identification is discouraged, Canada can remain Canada, according to this argument, even if European Canadians are eventually reduced to a tiny minority and the country becomes populated by masses of Sikhs, Sri Lankans, Chinese, Indians, and Haitians. They criticize multiculturalists for encouraging race-based identities rather than individual rights.

I believe that if we are interested in preserving and advancing the ethnic interests of European Canadians, it is better to work within the existing framework of multiculturalism than to promote assimilation. There are a number of flaws in the assimilationist strategy. For one, they are hyper-liberals in believing that all forms of group identity can be discarded, "freeing" the individual from all historical and biological antecedents and reducing the formation of identities to mere personal choices.

To be clear, multiculturalists also aim for a society based on individuals that are not "constrained" by traditional identities, but believe that, since "non-whites in colour" are still being oppressed by Caucasians, the government must level the playing field by allowing them to assert their ethnic identities. Multiculturalists also believe that non-Caucasians come from traditional cultures with strong collective identities and that the Canadian state has no right to enforce assimilation on immigrants but should allow them to enter Canada's liberal culture in terms that allow them to enjoy certain group rights as long as these rights do not violate individual rights. In the words of Will Kymlicka, humans (= immigrants) have a "very strong bond" to their culture and ethnicity; therefore, Canada should tolerate their ethnocentric tendencies and European Canadians should embrace multiculturalism.

We need to reply to multiculturalists that European Canadians also have a "very strong bond" to their ethnicity and historical ancestry, and in this way demand (within the framework of multiculturalism) the right of European Canadians to enjoy a group identity within Canada rather than being reduced to abstract units with individual rights only.

Another problem with the assimilationist view is that the "mainstream Canadian values" it emphasizes now includes multiculturalism. Multiculturalism has become deeply embedded in Canadian society and is now seen by millions as "mainstream" — whether we like it or not. Even critics of multicultural policies welcome the ethnic diversification of Canada's culture. Let's emphasize the identity of European Canadians and their group right to their own diversity.

Then again, even if multiculturalism were not an official policy or a much accepted norm in Canada, the issue that matters in the long run is the ethnic origins of the immigrants and their proportion relative to the founding peoples. If the immigrants coming to Canada were "Caucasian" we would not be discussing the impending end of European Canada. History shows that assimilation works when the immigrants are primarily "Caucasian." Assimilation does not work with masses of immigrants from regions that are "non-white in colour." The much talked about contrast between the American "melting pot" and the Canadian "mosaic" has lost any substantial meaning. Before the 1970s, Canada was a mosaic in the relative separation of the English and the French within Confederation. Conversely, America was a melting pot in the assimilation of peoples to the "American dream" from the same European ethnic background. But to this day, in America, Blacks and Indians have not assimilated well to the culture created by the majority European peoples of America, despite large scale affirmative action and propaganda. The assimilation now seems to be going the other way: White assimilation to African-American norms, or integration of everyone into some generic mass consumer culture.

The melting pot worked — after major difficulties and persisting divisions — only in regards to European immigrants. In recent decades, with the mass entry of Mexicans, there is little melting going on in many areas of the United States. While the United States does not have an official policy of multiculturalism at the federal level, one finds, under the pressure of relentless immigration and political correctness, a multiplicity of pro-diversity policies and programs at the state and municipal levels on matters related to school curricula, policing, hiring practices, and race relations generally. As Nathan Glazer already observed in the late 1990s, under the title, We are all Multiculturalists Now:

The melting pot is no more. Where not very long ago we sought assimilation, we now pursue multiculturalism. Nowhere has this transformation been more evident than in the public schools, where a traditional Eurocentric curriculum has yielded to diversity — and, often, to confrontation and confusion.

Best Argument is to Recognize Ethnocentric Interests of all Groups

The best strategy is to unify all our economic, environmental, and cultural concerns about immigration under a pro-European ethnic group strategy that is operational within, but recognizes the limitations of, multiculturalism in Canada. There are ways in which multiculturalism can be used to serve our interests. Take the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which is a law passed in 1988; this Act says that "multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage." Clearly, we could use this Act to protect and enhance the cultural and ethnic traditions of European Canadians. For example, we would be in favor of immigration so long as it was demonstrably advantageous to the economic interests of European Canadians. We would also favor immigrants from countries with similar cultural and ethnic backgrounds on the grounds that they would have an easier time and a greater disposition to assimilate to the majority culture of Canada.

It is odd that the very same people who created multiculturalism have precluded themselves from enhancing their own group interests, preferring to speak only of their individual rights while granting both group rights and individual rights to other ethnic minorities. In fact, we have practically criminalized any form of European ethnic attachment, treating it, and only this ethnocentrism, as "a pathological condition." We need to break out of this mental prison house.

There are of course many limitations within multiculturalism as this policy is currently framed. Multiculturalism supposes (erroneously) that Canada was somehow from the beginning "fundamentally" a nation based on racial diversity and that it must be dedicated to the promotion of diversity. It acknowledges the founding Anglo and French peoples only as linguistic categories. In response, we must affirm the historical truthfulness of Canada as a nation that was created by the Anglos and the French Quebecois, and then by Europeans. The aboriginals were the first people inhabiting this area, but the Anglos and French were clearly the creators of this country; all the institutions, infrastructure, culture, religions, educational curriculum, arts, architecture, everything, were French and Anglo, and from the late 19th century onward other European peoples came to participate.

We will NOT be arguing in favor of multiculturalism as a minority to advance our group rights, but will be arguing within multiculturalism in order to make Europeans aware that they are the founding peoples and that Canada is their homeland and that we intend to keep the country majority European. By working within multiculturalism, locating its weak points, "preserving and enhancing" our culture, demanding our rightful place as the majority Canadian culture, with the right to decide whether we want this country to remain European or not, we will undermine the ways in which multiculturalism currently favors non-Europeans. Minorities should continue to enjoy the right to advance their group rights but should not be granted a dominant position over the founding nation. In seeking to re-establish Canada as a European nation, we demand a special place as the nation's leading ethnic group such that it becomes official policy that Canada is predominantly European by descent and will ever remain so. Once that minimal condition is achieved, we can all enjoy our individual rights the way we did in the days before official multiculturalism was introduced in 1971.

With regard to the selection of immigrants, much has been said about discrimination. I wish to make quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a "fundamental human right" of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege. It is a matter of domestic policy…. There will, I am sure, be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population. Large-scale immigration from the Orient would change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population.

European use of multiculturalism to retain European hegemony in Canada would only work in the absence of massive third world immigration. As European numbers and influence dwindle, European cultural and political hegemony will become impossible to maintain as other ethnoracial groups reach critical mass and begin the struggle for dominance. The only thing left is nationalist revolution along white racial lines and against the globalists in Ottawa, otherwise our future is the third world.

European use of multiculturalism to maintain institutional hegemony in Canada is not a feasible strategy because of ongoing massive third world immigration. This threatens to demographically overwhelm the mainstream white population. Once the imported ethnoracial groups reach critical mass, they will begin the struggle for dominance of Canadian society. This will lead to possible racial civil war across the country, aircraft being shot down in Canadian airspace, political assassination and other acts of terrorism. The only thing left is for Europeans to make their presence physically known and this requires white nationalist revolution against the globalists in Ottawa. Anything less, and we face the grim fate of having to live in an impoverished third world country for the rest of our lives.

European Canadians are still about 75% of the population; and the basic point of the article is that multiculturalism is "better" than assimilation for it allows us to start thinking in ethnic terms since multiculturalism officially recognizes the group rights of non-Europeans, so it is only a matter of persuading the otherwise terrified European population that an ethnic strategy can be justified within the framework of multiculturalism. The assimilation argument does not allow for Europeans to define themselves in ethnic terms and calls upon everyone to think only in terms of individual rights, which is delusional. Working within multiculturalism is a short term strategy, and the ultimate objective is to define Canada in ethnic terms, with the Europeans as the historically legitimate majority. A nationalist revolution is not feasible at this point in time; first we need to start persuading ever more Europeans that there is nothing immoral about an ethnic strategy; what is immoral is the current recognition of the group-ethnic rights of minorities, but not of Europeans.

Absolutely. But David Duke in the US tried to build on the same foundations with an organisation deemed to promote European Americans (I forget its exact name). That organisation was of course immediately defamed as a white supremacist one by the usual suspects. Thus the difficulty to convinced the average Joe.

I noticed that statistics Canada has NOT published its "Visible Minority" thematic maps for the 2011 Census. You can see it in the 2006, but I don't know why 2011 has not been published yet.

Perhaps they don't want the European majority that to know that they are now majority-minority in many cities such as Toronto, Vancouver, Brampton, etc. For if they knew this, they would increase the rate of "white-flight."

Good point. First one would have to define what "Nationalism" is in a Canadian context. I think it's very difficult since there is really no such thing as "Canadian Identity," which assimilation wants to define. But that has failed because everyone still defines themselves according to their own ethnicity. Perhaps a break up into ethno-states in the future?

Something is missing from Tim Murray's article of 12 June, "B.C's anti-Asian history: Was it racism - or economic self-defense?"This is valuable research that refutes much of the criticism leveled at Canadian restriction of Asian immigration. However, the ethnic dimension is not well explored. I thought the CEC's mission was to represent the ethnic interests of European Canadians, not only their economic ones.

Mr. Murray's article implicitly agrees that "racism" is wrong. Already at that early stage of his article he conceded a critical point, that racial discrimination is necessarily wrong. Then why not dissolve the CEC and set up shop as conventional libertarian critics of minority (and all) ethnic solidarity?

The thrust of Mr. Murray's article is that the Chinese exclusion acts of the late 19th and early 20th century were acceptable because they were not "racist" but economically motivated. "It had a little to do with “race” and a lot to do with labour market economics, which ordinary Canadian workers well understood from bitter experience." He concludes by agreeing with Samuel Gompers that immigration is fundamentally a labour issue. What I expected from his article was a deconstruction of "racism" that distinguished responsible ethnocentrism and territorial defence from mob-type hatred and acts of violence. That distinction is critical to legitimating the CEC's mission. If the multicultural definition of "racism" is accepted, it will be impossible to construct a coherent defence of European ethnic interests.

If mass Third World immigration is to be coherently criticised, it will be necessary to assert the legitimacy of states discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, culture, and religion. The proper defence of the Chinese exclusion acts should go beyond economics (Mr. Murray does a great job there) to ethnic interests. It was right for the Canadian government and its precursors to protect the nation's ethnic interests and for its policies to reflect popular demands. Yes, the working class had immediate economic interests to protect, but there was also a wish to maintain ethnic identity. That value cannot be written off as "white supremacism" because the aspiration to maintain a majority ethnicity is a universal sentiment, serves a real interest, and is legitimate when expressed in external policy - immigration and foreign relations. The last point is critical. The left and minority activists seek to disarm Western societies by ruling out discriminatory immigration policies. But no people or culture can perpetuate itself unless it reserves the right to discriminate in selecting immigrants to its homeland. This is an interest shared by all nations.

The left and minority activists correctly see this as a watershed issue. If they lose it then European peoples will be free to pursue their ethnic interests. So we need to pound the point home again and again: discrimination is not necessarily or usually wrong. It is usually the right thing to do, in the sense of being adaptive and legitimate.

I like the CEC's use of the multiculturalism gambit. But to make progress that ideology needs to be critiqued and redefined, as you are doing. The point of democratising multiculturalism is to wrest the terms of debate back from the left and minority activists. The counter-ideology needs to be invented that allows governments to discriminate in the selection of immigrants in the interests of the founding ethnic group. That would be democratic and would comply with the Kantian moral tradition.

WHY IS IT MOSTLY WHITE NATIONS BEING TARGETED FOR DIVERSITY? (Diversity = ethnic cleansing of Whites).

1. Would a White majority Canada be more united, wealthy, safer, trusting, democratic and happier than a White minority USA? YES

2. What are the advantages for Whites of NOT embracing diversity/multiculturalism? Less racial division, less poverty, lower crime, less distrust, more freedom and less misery. http://www.amazon.com/Conflicts-Explained-Nepotism-Biopolitics-Employment/dp/0762305835

3. Why are Whites the only race funding and celebrating diversity as they become minorities in their own nations? LUNACY

4. Why are Whites tolerating themselves becoming a minority in a nation founded and built by Whites? WHITE GUILT

5. Will non-Whites treat Whites with equal compassion if or when Whites become a minority? NO

6. Every race fights to prevent itself becoming a minority in its own nation except Whites. Why? Overly COMPASSIONATE and TOLERANT

7. Why are many Whites willingly giving up their money and power to other races? LUNACY. Would other races do the same? NO

8. Why are non-Whites allowed to take advantage of White compassion and tolerance? WHITE GUILT

"....environmentalists would prefer a steady-state situation in which non-Europeans outnumbered Europeans than a growth situation in which Europeans outnumbered non-Europeans. Environmentalists are also intrinsically in favor of low fertility rates for everyone even if it means the proportional reduction of European peoples in Canada."

That describes me. On my now dormant website, "Biodiversity First", which declared on its homepage that mass immigration was the greatest threat to biodiversity and the environment, we stated that we would prefer a Canada of 5 million people most of whom were black and spoke Swahili, to a Canada of 34 million people where everyone was white and spoke English or French. In other words, "Biodiversity First".

However, in practical terms, since we advocated the end the immigration, we stood for a Canada as it is now ethnically constituted. For my part, I have argued that "Multiculturalism is bad for the environment". I attempted to justify Euro-Canada ethnic dominance on environmental grounds. In a nutshell, I argued that the conservation ethic issues from a northern European world view (German romanticism plus the English love of the countryside).

Biodiversity First recruited 28 members, one third of whom were either Americans, British, Australian, or Italian. All environmentalists who saw immigration-driven population growth as the enemy in their own countries. Most were agnostic about "cultural diversity". But we were not for it, as were the anti-immigration American breakaway faction, "Sierrans for a Sustainable US Population". They came out in favour of cultural diversity, largely, I think, to avoid the charge of racism. The Sierra Club establishment played the race card in order to drive them out.

"As it is, as much as environmentalists may want to avoid ethnic issues, they are still ostracized by “progressives” as racists the moment they talk about reducing immigration."

So true. Gradually, I came to realize that I was not a "progressive". I am the President of "Population-Environment Balance" (an American organization, head office Annaheim, Ca.) Dan Murray and I are the two Canadian members of the board. PEB is opposed to mass immigration for environmental, economic and cultural reasons. We are in strident opposition to Cultural Marxism, and William Lind is on our list of recommended authors. In the mid to late 70s, the environmental movement split into left and right. More accurately, it was hijacked by the Left, who marginalized and excommunicated the right. PEB has welcomed conservatives back into the fold, where they belong.

1. I love how there is a common Euro-Canadian interest now. Historically the Anglos treated the Irish really badly. Never mind the treatment the Italians, Polish etc got. So there was never historically a racial consciousness of the type you describe. It was always ethnic. Only when we, the third worlders of Asia show up that you start to think in white and black and brown. Historically no one thinks like that. Furthermore a lot of the "European" Canadians in Toronto are actually recent immigrants that are well integrated with a good number of other non-white immigrants.

2. There is no cohesive visible minority interests. In Canada there is a large variety of different groups with varying interests that don't necessarily see eye to eye. This envisioning of a large blob of third worlders out to get you betrays a serious misunderstanding.

3. The people pushing for all this immigration aren't poor third worlders. Its actually a combination of different groups. a) Rich white people whose livelihoods depend on growing the population base.b) white intellectuals, generally upper middle class, that love the social status acquired by helping the down-troddenc) Jewish people scared of being targeted for genocide at every turn

This combination is unstoppable. Most middle class white people aren't generally directly threatened by third world immigration. Most middle class white people are unbelievably conformist and don't want to get viewed as the lower-class racist prole white person. Given this state of affairs nothing you or anyone of your ilk does will be successful. Its a lost cause. The world you envision is no more.

Yes, some Anglos treated some non-Anglos badly, but they were not unique in treating members of some out-groups badly; this is still common in most of the non-Western world, and, as I point out in one of the articles on China, it is quite prevalent in China, where the government suppresses Tibetans and other non-Han minorities. What is unique about the Anglos, and Europeans generally, is the prohibition of racial discrimination. If you read the "metapolitical strategy" of this blog, we don't believe in racial discrimination, but agree that all Canadians citizens are equal under the law and should be treated accordingly.

2. "So there was never historically a racial consciousness of the type you describe. It was always ethnic"

There was racial consciousness otherwise how would you make sense of the "white only" immigration policies of the pre-1960s? However, as any reader of this blog will note, I prefer to use the term "ethnic" because I believe that culture is very important.

3. "Furthermore a lot of the 'European' Canadians in Toronto are actually recent immigrants that are well integrated with a good number of other non-white immigrants".

Yes, this is true, but see responses below.

4. "There is no cohesive visible minority interests. In Canada there is a large variety of different groups with varying interests that don't necessarily see eye to eye."

Emphasizing the importance of ethnic interests, and ethnic in-groups and out-groups, does not imply denying the importance of other in-groups and out-groups along sexual, religious or class lines. It means acknowledging the reality of ethnic identity, and research shows (see the article "The Great Fear", where I bring up scientific research) that humans do think in ethnic terms, and we know that in Canada we have substantial ethnic separation, as I document in an article I wrote recently under the title "Will Kymlicka, and the disappearing Dominion".

5. "This envisioning of a large blob of third worlders out to get you betrays a serious misunderstanding."

But you are phrasing it the wrong way; ultimately I blame Europeans in their enforcement of a cultural Marxist ideology that celebrates the ethnic identity of non-Europeans and prohibits the ethnic identity of Europeans.

6. "The people pushing for all this immigration aren't poor third worlders. Its actually a combination of different groups. a) Rich white people whose livelihoods depend on growing the population base."

I agree.

7. "b) white intellectuals, generally upper middle class, that love the social status acquired by helping the down-troddenc) Jewish people scared of being targeted for genocide at every turn"

I agree in part.

8. "This combination is unstoppable. Most middle class white people aren't generally directly threatened by third world immigration. Most middle class white people are unbelievably conformist and don't want to get viewed as the lower-class racist prole white person."

Again, I agree.

9. "Given this state of affairs nothing you or anyone of your ilk does will be successful. Its a lost cause. The world you envision is no more"

But now you are being inconsistent in agreeing with the cultural Marxist defamation of those who question their agenda ------- OR, you are not being inconsistent but are thinking in terms of your own ethnic interests, as a person from the "third world" as you said above.

This is why I am taking issue with the Chinese in Vancouver calling for continuous apologies -- they are employing cultural Marxists ideas which they don't apply to themselves but use them to advance their own ethnic interests.

Re #8. "This combination is unstoppable. Most middle class white people aren't generally directly threatened by third world immigration. Most middle class white people are unbelievably conformist and don't want to get viewed as the lower-class racist prole white person."

So long as Canada remains relatively stable and seemingly prosperous, white people will continue to conform. But economically speaking, the can won't be kicked down the road forever. What happens then? All bets are off, and I wouldn't stay so smug if I were you.

Re your Point #1: "So there was never historically a racial consciousness of the type you describe. It was always ethnic. Only when we, the third worlders of Asia show up that you start to think in white and black and brown. Historically no one thinks like that."

Historically, people who have come to see that they have a common interest of any kind will join together to pursue interests that didn't concern them in the past, or that they didn't even notice. Are you trying to say that if we weren't born thinking in a certain way, that adopting that viewpoint is somehow illegitimate?

More important, you obviously feel threatened by the idea of various white ethnic groups beginning to unite, or you wouldn't be sarcastically trying to shame us by saying that historically, no one thinks like that." Well, some of us do think that way now, and I can't see that the number is going to go down when 50% of the bums in seats of Parliament are heavily pigmented.

"What is unique about the Anglos, and Europeans generally, is the prohibition of racial discrimination."

Alas that is not true. The prohibition of racial discrimination never came about because of the Anglo or the European but rather the Jewish lobby. Anglos allowed for a world of individuals, where collective Jewish efforts triumphed and displaced the existing WASP elite. Using their nepotist control of the media the Jewish elites slowly but surely brought about our current PC reality.

"There was racial consciousness otherwise how would you make sense of the "white only" immigration policies of the pre-1960s?"

Again that is a particular new world phenomenon. The new world or Anglo settler colonies are special historically.

"I agree in part."Why only in part???

"But now you are being inconsistent in agreeing with the cultural Marxist defamation of those who question their agenda ------- OR, you are not being inconsistent but are thinking in terms of your own ethnic interests, as a person from the "third world" as you said above."

Extrapolating current immigration rates, differing fertility rates forward people of European ancestry will become minorities in this country and much of the Anglosphere sometime mid-century barring any black swan type events. Any attempt at limiting immigration can only succeed in Canada with the consent of recent immigrants.

"So long as Canada remains relatively stable and seemingly prosperous, white people will continue to conform. But economically speaking, the can won't be kicked down the road forever. What happens then? All bets are off, and I wouldn't stay so smug if I were you."

LOL Canadians are some of the most pansy white people I've ever come across.I can see American whites pulling crazy stunts but Canadians...By the time things go awry the demographics of the country will already be tooradically altered for any 'white' faction to succeed. Any loony factions will be mongrelized from the outset.

"More important, you obviously feel threatened by the idea of various white ethnic groups beginning to unite, or you wouldn't be sarcastically trying to shame us by saying that historically, no one thinks like that." "

No the only group of white people I feel threatened by are Jewish people. They seem to have their greasy paws in everything and shamelessly screw every group they can and causing wars for their own purposes. The WASPs, the Germans, Russians etc I can respect in a historic way but Jewish people are something else altogether.

"Well, some of us do think that way now, and I can't see that the number is going to go down when 50% of the bums in seats of Parliament are heavily pigmented."

The transition will be sudden given the demographic structure of the population.The darkies like me make up the younger section of the populace. Politicians are drawn from the older higher part of the population tree. So by the time the seats in parliament represent the country properly most white people will be very old or dead.

Yes, indeed, you "respect" WASPs, Germans, etc. because they/we are proving to be a bunch of patsies who cave to nonwhites compliments of their/our treasonous leaders and their Christian religion; you can climb all over us. The Jews know better, however, in your judgment.

Okie dokie, then. You are worried about the Jews. Besides starting wars, what else can they do (potentially) to threaten your wellbeing? And you don't think you can do anything about it? LOL In that case, all those colored bums in seats of parliament won't make any difference! The Jews'll mess it all up for you anyway!

"So there was never historically a racial consciousness of the type you describe. It was always ethnic. Only when we, the third worlders of Asia show up that you start to think in white and black and brown. Historically no one thinks like that."

Historically no one thinks like that, huh? Then WTF is "Pan Africanism" all about? I type this phrase into a search engine and get over 700,000 results.

"Yes, indeed, you "respect" WASPs, Germans, etc. because they/we are proving to be a bunch of patsies who cave to nonwhites compliments of their/our treasonous leaders and their Christian religion; "

No. The WASPs are the epitome (global maxima) of human civilization. They in tandem with Jewish interference created the most prosperous egalitarian countries in the world. As a 'darkie' I have far outperformed the best myparents could have achieved. My personal success is not at the hands of White guilt but rather the tolerance and appreciation of raw capitalism for non-white abilities. It is a primarily Anglo civilization withJewish inflections where I can succeed like I have. For that Anglo civilization must be protected at all costshowever I dislike 'raciss whites'. The problem arises that most people in the Anglosphere worship Mammon above allelse and think lots of money = supreme virtue, a trend McCloskey noted gone overboard.This is the fundamental flaw of modern Anglo civilization. Whenever I am with my 'white' peers I am forced to be the voice of reason. Modern white people arebat shit crazy and need protection from their crazy beliefs.

The germans are more collectivist than the Anglos. The most kind Europeans I have met in my travels around Eurasia. My experience with Germanw women makes me think they along with Scandinavian women are the most open I've met anywhere. Their efficiency and decency are truly worthy of praise. The fellow young people from the Anglosphere tend to becrude relative to the Germans. The Russians finish off the 'Western' gradient, being the most collective. Nonetheless Russians and Eastern Europeans were also quite civil. They while relativelyprimitive have rather robust civilizations that will weather radical downturns better than the Anglosphere.(http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2014/06/03-can-sanctions-stop-putin-gaddy-ickes)

"Okie dokie, then. You are worried about the Jews. Besides starting wars, what else can they do (potentially) to threaten your wellbeing? And you don't think you can do anything about it? LOL In that case, all those colored bums in seats of parliament won't make any difference! The Jews'll mess it all up for you anyway!"

Alas the Jews are the current elites. Nothing they do can threaten people accustomed to radical heterogeneity (aka Brazil/India).Jewish people are at their peak; over the next few decades there will be a schism over Israel and its racial policies that willengulf them in the nihilism that engulfed all Northwest europeans post-WW2.

Quote

The only way the identity politics of the left can be effectively challenged is with an identity politics that recognizes the biological grounding of humans as well as the kinship-based identities of nations.